I’ve tried three times to put James S Saint on my foe list. It doesn’t work. He’s still barfing on one of my threads.
A foe can still post in your threads, you just don’t see his posts when you are logged in.
So what happens when you put him as a foe? Does he show on the list?
The whole ignore thing doesn’t really work well…
… and doesn’t stop anyone anyway (else I would be using it myself as I tried many times).
Spam = spam = spam. “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”–"Murder in the Cathedral–T. S. Eliot
Ignore him.
Just keep your sanctimonious bullshit in the religion forum and you won’t have a problem.
Calling it Science and/or philosophy is your problem.
This applies to you as well;
Now this is what I mean. This particular reaction – the inflection, the tone. How do you explain this within the context of RM? And then how is that linked to THE God?
And how [per RM] do you know that it is “sanctimonious bullshit”?
As I have told you before, the discussion of “THE God” had nothing to do with RM other than the fact that I was asked for a definition for the term.
And as far as expression of attitude, I am merely, after a great deal of patience in receiving, giving back a small portion of the attitude I have been given. I had enough.
On top of the fact that this isn’t the place for him to make such attempts to defend his ego and lusts to preach his ideals. There are forums for that.
Hmm. Is there a hierarchy then between your definition of THE God and the definitions you use to articulate RM? How are they connected? Look, in all seriousness, I am just trying to get a more substantive/substantial understanding of how you bring the two together in your mind. And then for all practical purposes how applicable they are to the world we live in. A world ever bursting at the seams with all manner of conflict. In other words, is or is this not something you can convey more, well, existentially?
Think of it like this: There are all sorts of folks who come into ILP and seemingly bestow upon us their own rendition of RM: wendy52, lady jane, contra-neitzsche, volchok, tyrannus, the ubermen, the KTS crowd etc. etc. etc. It’s as though they are all insisting that if only we understood them everything [or practically everything] about reality would begin to fall into place. I mean, don’t you see a pattern here in this sort of thinking? To me it’s more about the mental, emotional and psychological need to be right than whatever authoritative contraption it might be that leads them to think that they are right.
And, no, I don’t exclude myself here either. Dasein, conflicting goods, political economy, the limitations of language. But I approach these things as one of Rorty’s ironists. I understand that here and now they encompass a frame of mind that I use to make sense of the world around me and my place in it. Always, however, they are subject to crumpling in the world of contingency, chance and change. There is only so much I can possibly know “objectively” about the nature of reality – human or otherwise. But then in regard to this you are really no different, right?
On the right forum, bigus.
Please keep to the topic of the thread…
The irony of arraogance! So I should stick to the religious forum because I have nothing to say elsewhere? This is why I opted for ignore. 4th attempt didn’t work. Is James a moderator or administrator?
the foe function works fine for me. You can’t put moderators on Foe, which has been on a couple of occasions, a shame, but otherwise it works for me.
I tried it and it works against James.
People can’t help you if you don’t describe what is happening in detail.
You go to ‘Manage Foes’
Put his name in the ‘Add New Foe’ box
Hit the ‘Submit’ button.
Press the ‘Yes’ button when asked the confirm question
It says that the operation was successful and his name appears in the list of foes.
Is that what happens for you?
It still only works if you are logged on.
I found out what I was doing wrong. I had James on my friends list and you can’t have it both ways. It seems at one time I considered him a friend, But–he seems to have joined the word police. I never ignored H&H because, when he was not on a drunken spree, he gave good posts.
And “good vs bad” being determined by who is agreeing with what you are selling vs disagreeing with what you are selling.
So of course, because I first agreed with what you were selling at that time, I was “friend” and thus you could see that I agreed. But once I disagree with what you are selling, I am “foe” and you can no longer see whether I agree to anything you are selling or not from there on out. You blind yourself from your “enemies”, eventually everyone, learning nothing while blindly proselytizing - “diminishing returns”.
Of course this isn’t a site to be selling or proselytizing.
It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. It has to do with attitude, ad homenim, spam. I’ve been into bioepistemology since 2002 at FRDB and other sites. If you disagree with my thread, at least offer something more than insinuations that it is beneath you to post there. The thread was referenced. You claim to be smarter than the reference! So how do I counter such arrogance? I’m not selling or proselytizing. I’m simply being who I always was.
I fully explained the illegitimacy of your theory in detail and in general. You asked that I read your book. I explained that you had provided no incentive because the theory was already explained away. You got incensed and went on this ranting spree…
“Get him away from ME. Ban the Heretic, Daddy Help. Help!!” 
Your word on Science is not god James, so stop behaving as such.